Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2025-07-02

02 July 2025 · 7 other contributors

Opened by Luke Pollard Labour (Co-op) The Minister for the Armed Forces

DefenceVeterans

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Luke Pollard raised concerns about armed forces commissioner bill 2025-07-02 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Minister thanked Members for supporting Armed Forces Day events
  • Minister expressed disappointment over the return of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill due to amendments
  • Minister highlighted that the Government's amendment includes protections for whistleblowers and family members

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

Luke Pollard

I beg to move, that this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, which already delivers what the Lords had inserted, and disagrees with the Lords in amendments 2B and 2C. The Minister thanked Members who supported Armed Forces Day events across the country and expressed disappointment at the return of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill due to flawed amendments proposed by Baroness Goldie. He emphasised that the Government's amendment included protections for whistleblowers and family members, which was not covered in the Lords' amendments. The Government is committed to establishing an independent champion for welfare matters of military personnel and their families, and believes that delaying the bill only hinders efforts to address toxic behaviours within the armed forces. The Minister highlighted the legal protections currently afforded under existing defence policy and emphasised the importance of trust and confidence in the new Armed Forces Commissioner role. He also mentioned ongoing work to review and update policies relating to raising concerns, including whistleblowing protections.

Other contributors (7)
  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Question

    Does the Minister agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism for ensuring the right thing is done by those who are legitimately whistleblowing?

    Minister reply

    The Minister agreed with Jim Shannon, noting that the Government's amendment includes family members within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner to provide an opportunity for raising welfare matters.

  • David Baines Lab St Helens North

    Question

    Does the Minister agree that we just need to get on with this now, so that we can show a united front and speak with one voice in support of our armed forces?

    Minister reply

    The Minister agreed with David Baines's point, emphasising the importance of passing the Bill quickly to establish an Armed Forces Commissioner who can deal with issues raised by military personnel and their families.

  • Graeme Downie Lab Dunfermline and Dollar

    Question

    Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible.

    Minister reply

    The Minister agreed with Graeme Downie, reiterating that the Bill was a key manifesto promise and an important step towards providing an independent voice for those who serve.

  • Andrew Murrison Con South West Wiltshire

    Question

    What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework?

    Minister reply

    The Minister stated that the Bill provides no obligation for resource allocation but suggested a model where two to three thematic investigations are conducted annually with dedicated teams, while the majority of resources relate to correspondence and casework.

  • Luke Akehurst Lab North Durham

    Question

    The MP asks if there is a political difference over the use of the term 'whistleblower' that has led to a poorly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill. He questions whether this will weaken and delay the Bill, hindering its purpose.

    Minister reply

    The Minister clarifies that while the amendments would restrict powers available to the commissioner and prevent achieving their objectives, they are unnecessary as existing protections for whistleblowers in defence policy already cover civilians and service personnel.

  • Luke Pollard

    Question

    The MP expresses hope that this is not a party political issue and highlights the Government's commitment to addressing cultural issues within the armed forces through stronger policies. He assures that the Employment Rights Bill will further strengthen protections for whistleblowers.

    Minister reply

    The Minister reaffirms the Government’s position, stating that the amendments create a narrower scope for the commissioner and prevent them from achieving their objectives. He confirms the intention to write to Opposition spokespeople in the House of Lords with detailed assurances about the changes made.

  • Helen Maguire LD Epsom and Ewell

    Question

    The Government’s insistence on removing the Lords amendments and replacing them with something far more limited is deeply disappointing. Their approach diminishes the ambition of the Bill and misses a critical opportunity to build genuine trust with service personnel and their families—something that the commissioner must get right from the start, or it will be near impossible to regain.

    Minister reply

    I appreciate Ms Maguire's concern but maintain that our amendments provide robust protections for whistleblowers while ensuring the Commissioner has proper investigatory reach. We believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously and are updating policies inherited from the previous government to deliver this work.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy